On Nov 18, 10:49 am, kedra marbun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 18, 8:04 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 6:57 pm, kedra marbun <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 17, 8:26 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Take a dream for example. You can believe that you are > > > > late for a train when in fact there is no evidence, no memory, no > > > > perception, no testimony, etc. I think that belief is part of the > > > > phenomenology of cognition, just a relatively fixed semantic > > > > orientation from which thought can be projected out from. The belief > > > > in the dream train is implicit as your feelings of anxiety and > > > > thoughts of racing to catch it, disappointment in missing it, etc are > > > > the active sensorimotive experiences. > > > > isn't this an example of psychologically caused belief? > > > How can you tell the difference subjectively, and why would it matter? > > well for this particular case i simply deduce it from your premises > 1. "no evidence, no memory, no perception, no testimony, etc" > 2. "The belief in the dream train is implicit as your feelings of > anxiety and thoughts of racing to catch it, disappointment in missing > it, etc". i take it as desire
That wouldn't be subjective thought, that's omniscient. The subject would not be consciously aware of the premises or even of their own belief. > > but, as i've already said i see your point that causality of belief is > complex That's not my point though. My point is that causality of belief is irrelevant, or even an obstacle to understanding it. > > but, classifying the methods in which beliefs are formed & in which > justifying evidences are acquired, into at least reliable & not, is > important because otherwise i'd not be able to differentiate between > evidentialism & reliabilism Why is it important to differentiate evidentialism & reliabilism? > > i think an easy way out of this discussion is presenting your > interpretations of the 2 ism, particulary the definition of 'evidence' > according to evidentialism > I'm not sure what 2 ism you mean. In general though I don't pursue linguistic definitions. I don't 'believe' in them. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
